Circle of Greats: 1913 Part 1 Balloting

This post is for voting and discussion in the 72nd round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG).  This round begins to add to the ballot those players born in 1913. Rules and lists are after the jump.

Players born in 1913 are being brought on to the COG eligible list over two rounds, split in half based on last names — the top half by alphabetical order this round and the bottom half next round.  This round’s new group joins the holdovers from previous rounds, plus three candidates who return to the ballot after getting the three highest vote totals from the just-completed redemption round, to comprise the full set of players eligible to receive your votes this round.

The new group of 1913-born players, in order to join the eligible list, must have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers).

Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players.  The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats.  Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility.  Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility.  Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EDT Wednesday, October 1, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Monday, September 29.

If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: COG 1913 Part 1 Vote Tally.  I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes.  Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted.  Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover candidates; additional player columns from the new born-in-1913 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players.  The fourteen current holdovers (eleven from the previous regular induction round, and three returned via the redemption round) are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same.  The 1913 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played. In total there were 13 players born in 1913 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Six of those are being added to the eligible list this round (alphabetically from Tiny Bonham to Tommy Henrich).  The seven players further down in the alphabet will be added next round.

The six candidates born in 1913 being added to the eligible list this round represent an unusually low number of birth-year additions for a COG round. Guys born in 1913 and the years just before and after who were good enough ballplayers to merit long major league careers were likely to be serving in the military in World War II, reducing the chance that those born in this segment of years would accumulate the playing time needed to qualify for the COG eligible list. That plus our practice of splitting the birth-year class and adding it to the eligible list over two rounds, something we’ve been doing do every third induction round of voting, is resulting in very few entirely new candidates this election. Fortunately, we also happen at this moment to be bringing back into eligibility three “redeemed” candidates, which we’ve been doing every tenth induction round. That means that despite only six completely new candidates on the eligible list there should be some interestingly fresh issues for you to confront as you cast your votes.

Holdovers and Redemption Round Selections:
Whitey Ford (eligibility guaranteed for 8 rounds)
Craig Biggio (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Lou Boudreau (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Joe Gordon  (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roy Campanella  (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1913, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Tommy Henrich
Roy Cullenbine
Lee Handley

Pitchers (born in 1913, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Mort Cooper
Tiny Bonham
Al Brazle

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

156 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago

Well, it’s a first for me: voting for both the “controversial” war-time infielders. Here’s the ballot:

Kevin Brown
Joe Gordon
Lou Boudreau

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Joe Gordon is controversial?

Well I guess he played in wartime, but he also lost 2 seasons to wartime, so I figure he gets a positive adjustment, not a negative one.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago

I think everyone would agree with you (and me) that Joe Gordon gets an upward adjustment; the controversial part of it is HOW MUCH of one he gets. There are particularly some voters who have a strong preference for one of these candidates over and above the other, and as both are infielders of the same era, the comparisons are naturally invited. There have been a lot of words spilled in favor of one over and against the other; I was just pointing out that I was voting for both.

--bill
--bill
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I’ve been wondering: should we adjust numbers from 1946-1950 (and maybe even after) downward? After the war, what was the replacement level? Think of men born between 1910 and 1925; these would be the bulk of the men in the majors. Many were dead. Many were injured. If you were born in 1920, maybe in 1941 you’ve just finished your first year in rookie ball. Maybe you’re thinking–four years working up the minors, get to the majors around 1945, 1946, a nice 5-7 year career as a sometime starter, and retire in 1953 back to the farm. But then you… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  --bill

With a few exceptions- most notably Cecil Travis- most of the players who were stars before the war pretty much picked up where they left off. Undoubtedly a few that may have become stars in the future probably did have their careers derailed for one reason or another. But other factors may have done that prior to the war as well. In the first 30 or so years of the century scouting could be pretty erratic. Then when the idea of major league teams controlling either minor league players or franchises came along a few teams wound up hoarding a… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doom, really, I’ve only heard one voter strongly express a preference for one against the other. The idea that this has to be an either/or thing has largely grown out of that, when really these two players are quite similar.

mosc
mosc
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I’m hardly the only one to vote for one of these guys and not the other. I think they’re both strong candidates but Gordon is clearly over the bar to me Boudreau is a good candidate but I have a hard time saying he’s much better than Biggio. You can say he has much more WAA but that’s based on a lot of RBAT from his wartime years.

But as far as this being about me? No. There are lots of folks voting for Gordon and not Boudreau or vice versa.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

Hard to imagine a famous person dying nowadays from complications from appendicitis surgery.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

And in case anyone needed clarification, his obituary ends with the line:

“His nickname of Tiny was the paradoxical reflection of his physical proportions.”

robbs
robbs
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Not the same as she was 88 but Joan Rivers went in for work due to laryngitis.

Steve
Steve
10 years ago

Whitey Ford; Harmon Killebrew; Roy Campanella

JEV
JEV
10 years ago

Killebrew, Campanella, Gordon

koma
koma
10 years ago

Craig Biggio, Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley

Abbott
Abbott
10 years ago

Biggio, Eckersley, Winfield

Mike HBC
Mike HBC
10 years ago

Gordon, Eck, Boudreau

Jeff Harris
Jeff Harris
10 years ago

Brown, Boudreau, Reuschel

MJ
MJ
10 years ago

Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Joe Gordon

MJ
MJ
10 years ago

Reuschel’s last name is spelled wrong on the spreadsheet.

Ajnrules
10 years ago

Craig Biggio
Lou Boudreau
Rick Reuschel

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

Joe Gordon, Roy Campanella, Minnie Minoso

Low T
Low T
10 years ago

Gordon, Boudreau, Tiant

billh
billh
10 years ago

Alomar, Winfield, Tiant

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
10 years ago

Ford, Alomar, Minoso

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago

Hooray for numbers! PaWaa Here is Wins Above Average, expressed as a rate stat, by dividing it into Plate Appearances (PaWaa): 166.4 … (7304) Lou Boudreau 176.2 … (6537) Joe Gordon 287.8 … (7712) M Minoso 275.1 … (4786) Roy Cullenbine 278.9 … (5410) Tommy Henrich 306.7 … (4815) Roy Campanella 322.0 … (10400)Rob Alomar 350.0 … (9833) Harmon the Killer 435.7 … (12504)Craig Biggio 474.8 … (12817)Steady Eddie 521.4 … (12358) Winfield _________________________ This stat in its raw form favors the career that abruptly ended at age 34-35 (Gordon, Boudreau) to the player who hung on at league average… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago

Innings Pitched per Win Above Average

IpWaa:

80.3 …. (3256) Brown
93.1 …. (3548) Reuschel
101.0 … (3486) Tiant
107.4 … (3286) Eckersley
109.3 … (3170) Ford

I dunno how we’re going to sort these 5 guys out.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

110.9 … (1841) Mort Cooper
130.3 … (1551) Tiny Bonham
167.9 … (1377) Alpha Brazle

Doug
Doug
10 years ago

This year’s tidbits. – Tommy Henrich has one of ten Yankee seasons (by 8 players) of 135+ runs on fewer than 185 hits. All other teams since 1901 have 9 such seasons combined. Who is the only player to record no black ink in such a season? – Roy Cullenbine and erstwhile Tiger teammate Hank Greenberg set respective league records in 1947 for both home runs and walks in a final season. Cullenbine’s 137 BB remains the major league record today. – Lee Handley shares with two HOFers the distinction of leading his league in stolen bases but having only… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Additional tidbits: Tommy Henrich is one of 4 players with at least 3 career GS to have hit them all in one season. Henrich hit all 4 of his GS in 1948. Wildfire Schulte hit all of his 4 in 1911, Chris Sabo hit all 3 of his in 1993 and, of course as many of us know, Don Mattingly hit all 6 of his in 1987. Roy Cullenbine received a BB in 22 consecutive games in 1947, that’s still the record. Also in 1947 he batted .224 with an OBP of .401. That’s the lowest BA for a qualifying… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Tommy Henrich question: Harlond Clift who will eligible for COG voting for 1912 born players. And I already have my additional tidbit for him.

Doug
Doug
10 years ago

Clift is the one. Not only does he get no black ink for that season on the main season by season display, there’s no black ink for him in any of the more esoteric categories listed near the bottom of the player page.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Barry Bonds came VERY close to breaking Cullenbine’s record for most BB in a final season. Bonds was walked 132 times in only 477 PA in 2007.

Lee Handley question: Chuck Klein is one of them. I haven’t found the other yet.

Tiny Bonham question:
Curt Schilling (2002), Bob Gibson (1968), Sandy Koufax (1964), and Hal Newhouser (1946). I couldn’t find the fifth.
Pete Alexander (1927) gets an honorable mention; he didn’t WIN the clinching game in 1926, but he did get the save.

Doug
Doug
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Gibson, Koufax and Newhouser are right.

Schilling is wrong. Randy Johnson got the win in the 2001 WS clincher.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Aha! You’re right! But Schilling did start that one, and pitched well. It was the one I didn’t look up. Drat!

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Handley question–was it Klein & Red Schoendienst?

Doug
Doug
10 years ago
Reply to  Gary Bateman

Yes, those are the players.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Brazle: Kent Tekulve pitched 215 innings in his age 39-40 seasons with the Phillies. He pitched 163 games. His age 40-41 seasons had “only” 185 innings with no starts.

Doug
Doug
10 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

Tekulve is the one.

Second on the age 40-41 list is Joe Berry, only 4.1 IP behind Kent thanks to his 130 IP age 40 season, the most at that age. Berry’s 294 career IP stood for 19 years as the record among pitchers with zero starts, until surpassed when Barney Schultz last pitched in 1965.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Remaining quiz answers.

Mort Cooper question: first NL pitcher to allow a WS home run in 3 straight seasons – Burleigh Grimes 1930-32

Tiny Bonham question: 5 other pitchers to lead league in WHIP the year after starting and winning WS clinching game – Hal Newhouser (1946), Ralph Terry (1963), Sandy Koufax (1964), Bob Gibson (1968), Jose Rijo (1991)

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago

Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:

Brown 43.3
Boudreau 42.3
Reuschel 40.6
Tiant 37.5
Gordon 37.1
Alomar 37.1
Biggio 36.3
Eckersley 34.3
Murray 33.7
Killebrew 33.0
Winfield 31.1
Minoso 30.6
Ford 29.3
Campanella 19.2

Brown, Boudreau, Gordon

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

Apropos of nothing in particular, but a note from B-R’s “In Memorium” page shows that Rogers Hornsby McKee has died. McKee had a brief wartime career as a teenage replacement for the Phillies. McKee has the distinction of being the youngest pitcher since 1901 with a CG (and a CG win), at age 17 years, 17 days on the last day of the 1943 season. I’m guessing McKee’s dad was a Cardinals fan. In 1890, Willie McGill had an 11-9 record with 19 CG in 20 starts as a 16 year-old for the Cleveland Infants of the Players League. He… Read more »

Francisco
Francisco
10 years ago

Craig Biggio, Luis Tiant, Kevin Brown

Bix
Bix
10 years ago

Eckersley, Boudreau, Campanella

dr. remulak
dr. remulak
10 years ago

Biggio, Ford, Campanella.

Chris C
Chris C
10 years ago

Biggio, Eckersley, Tiant

latefortheparty
latefortheparty
10 years ago

Kevin Brown
Rick Reuschel
Lou Boudreau

I’ve gotta figure an equitable way to rate catchers. My method doesn’t get Campanella — although I say, “wow” on a per-at-bat basis — and it didn’t show love for Simmons in the redemption round. I know I’m not the first person to have this problem and I won’t be the last.

Jeff
Jeff
10 years ago

Biggio, Eckersley, Ford

Steven
Steven
10 years ago

Ford, Killebrew, Campanella

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago

So I know some people hate this, but I definitely want to do this kind of analysis, and I know some others do as well, so I figured I would save some of you a bit of work: I went through the list of everyone to come by birth year, I have listed all of the future elections by year until 1870, and then the candidates we might potentially elect from 1860 to 1869 and then anything before 1860. Anyone with >= 50 WAR is on the list. There may be a few other candidates worth considering with fewer WAR,… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

A few more candidates:

1910/1 Dean
1907 Dickey
1903 Cochrane
1873 Wallace

I’d give Dean and Wallace ?, Dickey and Cochrane neither ? nor !

Hubbell waa born in 1903, not 1904, btw. 1903 is a pretty stacked year.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

Holy Clerical errors, batman, how did I miss those guys? I could have sworn I remembered Cochrane and Dickey, and I had a special eye out for catchers since guys in the 50-60 WAR range aren’t even ?s. Dean failed my baseline 50 WAR check and I can’t see giving him significant war credit, nor does he have enough peak for me to think he’s a serious candidate. He’s got 12 fewer WAR than Koufax, and his 6 year peak is in line with our typical borderline candidates, not the exceptional peak borderliners or locks. He’s certainly as good a… Read more »

bells
bells
10 years ago

whatever we do, it might be a good idea to plan ahead so that we have several elections after the last new birth year. Like, if we cut it off at 1870 as a birth year (or just did a special ‘everyone else who had much of their careers in the 20th century’ ballot), it wouldn’t really be fair for the guys born that year, as they’d only have one chance at it. If I remember correctly, birtelcom had suggested the split voting rounds only until 1900, which would cut out 3 of your elections. So, 49 more would take… Read more »

David P
David P
10 years ago

Gehringer should be listed as a lock. 80.6 WAR and 45.4 WAA.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

In addition to the 15 guys you listed as locks I count 25 guys that I’m almost certain I will be voting for on your list (and the 4 that David added in his). There’s also a chance that a closer look may add a few more to that total. Add to that a couple of handfuls of players either currently on the ballot or waiting for redemption plus Jim Thome & Edmonds from the 1970 ballot and even if the BBWAA is pretty generous in the upcoming HOF voting we are going to have a few tough decisions to… Read more »

David P
David P
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Hartvig – I’ve seen others express an interest in having some sort of a reconsideration round. I would suggest that we need to be very cautious about doing that. Here’s why. We have a very small voting pool that is constantly changing. Meanwhile, the “worst” COG candidates win their elections by a few votes. Any sort of reconsideration round will also result in a very close election. But what does it really mean? Given the small, constantly shifting voting pool and given the closeness among the “worst” candidates, we could hold 100 different reconsideration rounds and we’d probably get 100… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  David P

My guess- and of course unless we actually were to do something like this that’s all anyone can do- is that if we were to do something like this the player being reconsidered would most likely win anyways, unless we somehow end up with a couple of really strong candidates still on the outside when we run out of places to put them. While I think it would be interesting to have to choose between a very mixed bag of fairly closely matched candidates for a couple of spots I also wouldn’t be bothered if we don’t do something like… Read more »

David P
David P
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Perhaps Hartvig. Hard to know in advance particularly given close votes and ever shifting voters.

I would suggest that if we are to do this, that it should take more than a one vote loss for someone to get kicked out. Something more akin to losing by 5 votes, something that would demonstrate a clear preference for the newer candidate.

RJ
RJ
10 years ago
Reply to  David P

@58 David P: This encapsulates my feelings on the matter perfectly.

bells
bells
10 years ago

Here’s the vote according to my statistical methodology. I take four measures of player value as a gauge of how players compare across advanced metrics that value things slightly differently. Then I give them a cumulative rank with all players on the ballot over 50 WAR, adding their ranking of each measure. Here are the measures: WAR – the ‘classic’ way of measuring a player’s value over a player the team could have gotten to replace the player, over that player’s career, to show how ‘good’ that player was. WAA+ – adding the wins above average players (rather than replacement)… Read more »

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago

Voting this round for:
Minoso (10.7 WAR for Cleveland, 192 HBP)
Murray ( 1.9 WAR for Cleveland, 18 HBP)
Biggio (never played for Cleveland, 285 HBP)

Plus there was that Tom Hanks movie Big, which came up when I accidentally searched on “Big” rather than opening Biggio’s B-R page.

aweb
aweb
10 years ago

Brown
Reuschel
Boudreau

Shard
Shard
10 years ago

Another first time voter:

Roberto Alomar
Craig Biggio
Joe Gordon

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

No pun or interesting fact on this one, birtelcom; just the welcome? I expected a “2B, or not 2B” at the very least!

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Well, the answer is obvious given the ballot, so… 🙂

donburgh
donburgh
10 years ago

Craig Biggio, Eddie Murray, Rick Reuschel

J.R.
J.R.
10 years ago

Ford, Biggio, Gordon

Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson
10 years ago

Killebrew, Ford and Eckersley

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago

Roberto Alomar, Kevin Brown, Eddie Murray

Hub Kid
Hub Kid
10 years ago

Luis Tiant, Lou Boudreau, Minnie Minoso

PP
PP
10 years ago

Killer, Eck, Tiant

bstar
bstar
10 years ago

Update through PP’s vote @72:

Biggio…..11
Boudreau…10
Gordon……9
Brown…….8
Eckersley…8
Ford……..7
Tiant…….7
Reuschel….7
Killebrew…6
Campanella..6
Alomar……5
Minoso……4
Murray……3
Winfield….2

David P
David P
10 years ago

I’m fine with any of the top three. And as much as I hope Murray someday gets elected he has a year of eligibility to burn if needed.

So…Biggio, Boudreau, Gordon

Andy
Andy
10 years ago

Biggio, Kevin Brown, Campanella

T-Bone
T-Bone
10 years ago

Reuschel, Campy, Biggio

Matt G.
Matt G.
10 years ago

For me? Kevin Brown… Eddie Murray… Joe Gordon…

jeff hill
jeff hill
10 years ago

Brown, Boudreau, Reuschel

bells
bells
10 years ago

Alright, vote change. He’s in the lead, the new guys are pretty safe so they don’t need my vote, and he’s been on the ballot long enough. I don’t think he’s the best on the ballot, but I think he deserves to be in and it might as well be now. Time for Craig Biggio to get his due.

Change from Reuschel, Tiant, Alomar

to

Reuschel, Biggio, Alomar

RonG
RonG
10 years ago

Ford, Campanella, Minoso

Brendan Burke
Brendan Burke
10 years ago

Alomar, Brown, Tiant

Darien
10 years ago

Biggio, Killebrew, and Eckersley

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

Biggio, Murray, Winfield

I’m happy to get on the Biggio bandwagon. I voted for Winfield in the redemption round, so I’d like to see him hang around a while.

Mike G.
Mike G.
10 years ago

Brown, Reuschel, Tiant